Sunday, August 19, 2012

Aug. 19 - Aug. 25, 2012 Discussions

My Sunday comment for August 19 began with information about the progress (or lack of progress) with my new book: I didn't receive any responses to query letters during the week, and I was setting October 8 as the "deadline" for my attempts to find an agent.  If I don't have a literary agent seriously looking at the book by October 8, I plan to be ready for the final steps in self-publishing - getting the ISBN code, signing the contract with the printing company, and sending out the CD with all the pdf files, fonts and the cover art.

I also mentioned some of the problems I'm having in creating the pdf files.  Formatting the Table of Contents and the List of Exhibits has been particularly frustrating.  But, I'm making progress.

Then I mentioned the latest attempt by "Anonymous" a.k.a. "Dxer" to try to show that he is right about something related to the Amerithrax investigation and I am wrong about everything.

On Saturday, it appears that he posted some questions to the previous thread on this blog that were just a devious and pathological attempt to get me to post something that was scientifically incorrect.  But, all he did was show his ignorance of science and how sneaky he can be.  I was being polite to some unknown person posting seemingly innocent questions as "Anonymous," and he was being devious by framing the questions in a way that he believed would cause me to write things that conflicted with a new scientific report he'd found.  It didn't work.  All he showed was that he didn't understand the scientific report he was trying to use against me.

I had previously stated that I'd delete all further posts from him, but I let those posts stay, since they clearly show how sick and devious he can be.



  1. EL,

    The Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, Socratic irony, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

    The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions.


  2. TV,

    I know all that. I enjoy the "Socratic method," I enjoy posing an hypothesis and getting intelligent questions about the hypothesis. That's the purpose of this forum.

    But, "Anonymous/DXer" isn't doing that when he asks devious questions that distort the facts and are designed to get his "opponent" (me) to respond in a way that he can argue is incorrect.

    His first question was about inhaled spores being killed by the conditions in a sauna.

    When I explained that a sauna was dry heat, and that the spores inside a living person's body wouldn't be harmed by the heat or humidity outside of a person's body, he changed the question and asked about conditions on the surface of a ship.

    It was all just a way to get me to say something to the effect that spores would not be killed by slow-cooking them at 170 degrees Fahrenheit for 7 days. I didn't say what he wanted me to say, so he tried to argue that I was wrong in some other way.

    There is NOTHING intelligent about his questions, nor can anything of value result from such questions. The purpose is malicious, not instructive.


  3. You will beat NAS panel member's treatise by one day. The publication date for her book is October 9, 2012. (She was on the NAS panel).

  4. Anonymous,

    You do not understand. But, your comment is informative, anyway, so I let it go through.

    My deadline is NOT a publication date. It's the date I will start the final preparations for self-publishing. The actual publication date would be weeks later - depending upon equipment availability at the printing company.

    I deleted your "Victor" post, since it was just nonsense.


  5. Edward,

    What did you think of New York City Captain of Police Detective Tom Walker new book summarizing the weaknesses of an "Ivins Theory"? His non-fiction book has a Sherlock Holmes theme.

    One Professor states in his review:


    "Details, deduction, creativity and perseverance. If you like solving detective mysteries, this fascinating book is the real thing. Capt. Walker reveals his deductive thought processes .... Walker shows how he notified the respective law enforcement agencies handling the cases, and how his analyses turned out to be correct. The book also highlights the importance of details, creativity and perseverance. For me, as a professor, there is another lesson - in life the clues are all there, if only we look for them."

  6. Anonymous wrote: "What did you think of New York City Captain of Police Detective Tom Walker new book summarizing the weaknesses of an "Ivins Theory"?"

    Ah, a NEW subject!

    I find it fascinating. But, I think I'll need to study it more before making any lengthy comments. He seems to have come to a false conclusion early in the investigation as a result of having very little actual information, and then when more information came in, he would believe whichever "expert" seemed to confirm his original belief - instead if evaluating the new facts. That's just the opposite of what Sherlock Holmes would have done. It's the way you do things.

    But, I like the part about the guy from Racine.

    I don't think I ever exchanged any emails with Walker, but I can't be sure. I haven't done any search through my archives. That's one of the things I need to do before making any real comment.


    1. After studying all the pages I can access, it now appears that Walker may conclude that Bruce Ivins was the culprit.

      The stuff "DXer" quotes on Lew Weinstein's blog, suggests that Walker may agree with the Anthrax Truthers. But that material is from page 90.

      On page 95, Walker consults with "Toby," of whom Sherlock Holmes once said, "I would rather have Toby's help than that of the whole detective force in London."

      And, on page 97 "Toby" gives Walker some evidence indicating that Bruce Ivins could be the culprit after all.

      And, the chapter about the case ends on page 100.

      From a pure story-telling point of view, it would appear that the last few pages could show Walker shifting his point of view to agree with "Toby."

      I'll find out when I receive a copy of the book - probably next week. (To avoid Amazon's shipping costs, I also bought 2 DVD movies I've been wanting to buy for a long time).


    2. "After studying all the pages I can access, it now appears that Walker may conclude that Bruce Ivins was the culprit."

      Ha! No. And he wrote in plain English in both the excerpts I quoted and in the rest of the book.

      With respect to Toby, he is referring to what I'll call the Wisconsin Bowler Theory. You can go down that alley again if you want. But life is short and so I propose we all move on.

      But there is no denying that Mr. Walker was in the business of knowing when there was sufficient evidence to appropriately close a case and so his voice is welcome.

      And he may inspire some to look up for a local Sherlock Holmes society. I know there is one locally because it bumped the scrabble club one month from its meeting room.

  7. And you thought that I wouldn't be able to get you to read a book.

    See also

    "The Science of Sherlock Holmes: From Baskerville Hall to the Valley of Fear, the Real Forensics Behind the Great Detective's Greatest Cases"
    E. J. Wagner (Author)

  8. Anonymous wrote: "And you thought that I wouldn't be able to get you to read a book."

    No, that's what YOU thought. I read lots of books. I thought you would never mention a worthwhile book about the anthrax case.


  9. Ed,

    And what I said is that you should avoid commenting on something until you've read it.

    Hey, Anonymous,

    Should I tell Ed that "Toby" is the dog?

  10. Anonymous wrote: "Should I tell Ed that "Toby" is the dog?"

    I know "Toby" is the dog in the Sherlock Holmes stories. On my web page I link to descriptions of the dog and even a drawing of him. Just click on the links under the name "Toby."

    But, in Walker's book he uses an old woman carrying a dog named "Toby" as a way to pass information between a "Baker Street Irregular" code named "Toby" and Walker.

    I've printed out pages 83-87, 89-91 and 93-97 of the book.

    On page 83, Walker writes "I am convinced that the sender [of the anthrax letters] is a 'Unabomber type person."

    Anonymous also wrote in a different comment, "With respect to Toby, he is referring to what I'll call the Wisconsin Bowler Theory."

    Yes, at the bottom of page 85 Walker develops a theory that connects the Greendale School in Greendale, WI, to a laboratory in Madison, WI. That has nothing to do with "Toby." Walker states on page 86:

    "Conclusion: We are looking for a scientist who lives/works in the Milwaukee/Madison, Wisconsin area and has the necessary capabilities (knowledge, equipment and motive) to send these letters"

    In late 2001 or early 2002, Walker says he sent that information to the FBI.

    On page 87, Walker says believed that "Grade 4 had a special meaning to the Anthrax killer -- possibly a super grade of anthrax." (This is total nonsense. There is no such grading system for anthrax.)

    Walker then quotes a lot of uninformed scientists and on page 90 he lists the stuff you quoted.

    On page 95, Walker looks for more hidden meanings in the return address on the Daschle letter, and he writes:

    "This required that extraordinary measures be taken. I contacted a Baker Street Irregular member, code name "Toby", in Racine, Wisconsin."

    "Toby" replies a week later via email (at the top of page 96), and "Toby's" reply is passed to Walker/Sherlock via a little old lady who has a dog named "Toby."

    The operative code named "Toby" informs Walker that if you subtract the ZIP code for Franklin Park (08823) from the ZIP code used on the letter for Franklin Park (08852) you get 29. If viewed as a number code, the 2nd letter of the alphabet is B and the 9th letter of the alphabet is I. Therefore, it appears that there's another code in the letters that points to Bruce Ivins (whose initials are B.I.).

    I said that from a "story telling" perspective, the story COULD (and probably should) end with Walker finding further evidence that points to Ivins.

    But, you just sent me an email that contains a passage from some part of the book I haven't been able to access. That passage says,

    "P.S. I'm certain that Bruce Ivins could never be found 'guilty' in a court of law. And yes, we know that doesn't prove he's innocent. That's another reason to re-open this case. Why? BECAUSE THERE'S A QUESTION TO ANSWER: Is there a monster or monsters out there just waiting to strike again? Just waiting for a catastrophic event, i.e., a war in the Middle East!"

    So, it's unclear exactly who Walker thinks did it. He seems to have yet another UNIQUE Anthrax Truther theory based upon ignorance of the facts and bad science.

    And, that's just fine with me.